Wednesday, 29 February 2012

Daniel Morgan was a private investigator who was murdered in Sydenham, south east London, in March 1987. He was said to have been close to exposing important police corruption. His death was the subject of several failed police inquiries and in 2011 was at the centre of allegations concerning the suspect conduct of News of the World journalists. Morgan's unsolved murder has been described as a reminder of the old London police culture of corruption and unaccountability.

Daniel Morgan was born in Singapore,[1] the son of an army officer.[2] He grew up with an elder brother and younger sister in Monmouthshire, where he attended agricultural college in Usk before spending time in Denmark gaining experience of farming.[1] He married in his late twenties and moved to London where he and his wife settled and had two children.[1]

Daniel Morgan had an exceptional memory for small details, such as car registration numbers[1] and in 1984 he set up a detective agency, Southern Investigations, in Thornton Heath, South London.[2]

[edit] Murder

On 10 March 1987 after having a drink with Jonathan Rees, his partner in Southern Investigations, at the Golden Lion pub in Sydenham, Morgan was found dead in the pub car park[3] next to his car, with an axe wound to the back of his head.[4] Although a watch had been stolen his wallet had been left and a large sum of money was still in his jacket pocket. The pocket of his trousers had been torn open and notes he had earlier been seen writing were missing. Subsequently a match to the DNA sample found on Morgan's trouser pocket was allegedly made.[5] Morgan was alleged to have been investigating drug-related police corruption in south London before his death.[5]

Detective Sergeant Sid Fillery, stationed at Catford police station, was assigned to the case but did not reveal to superiors that he had been working unofficially for Southern Investigations.[4] In April 1987 six individuals including Sid Fillery and Jonathan Rees, the brothers Glenn and Garry Vian and two Metropolitan police officers were arrested on suspicion of murder but all were eventually released without charge.[4]

At the inquest into Morgan's death in April 1988 it was alleged that Jonathan Rees, who had had disagreements with Morgan, told Kevin Lennon, an accountant at Southern Investigations, that police officers at Catford police station who were friends of his were either going to murder Danny Morgan or would arrange it, and Sid Fillery would replace Morgan as Rees's partner. When asked, Rees denied murdering Daniel Morgan.[6] Sid Fillery, who had retired from the Metropolitan Police on medical grounds and joined Southern Investigations as Rees's business partner, was alleged by witnesses to have tampered with evidence and attempted to interfere with witnesses during the inquiry.[7]

[edit] Inquiries

In the twenty years following Morgan's death five police inquiries were conducted. There were allegations of police corruption, drug trafficking and robbery.[3]

During an initial Metropolitan Police inquiry Jonathan Rees and Sid Fillery were questioned but both denied involvement in the murder.[2][3]

After an inquiry by Hampshire police in 1988, Jonathan Rees and another man were charged with the murder, but charges were dropped because of a lack of evidence.[4] The Hampshire inquiry's 1989 report to the Police Complaints Authority stated that "no evidence whatsoever" had been found of police involvement in the murder.[2]

Sid Fillery retired from the Metropolitan Police on medical grounds and took over Daniel Morgan's position as Jonathan Rees's partner at Southern Investigations.[4] In 1998 Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner Roy Clark conducted a third, secret, inquiry into the murder during which Southern Investigations's office was bugged.[4] In December 2000, Jonathan Rees was found guilty of conspiring to plant cocaine on an innocent woman in order to discredit her in a child custody battle and sentenced to seven years imprisonment for attempting to pervert the course of justice.[2][4] When the Morgan family called for disclosure of the 1989 Hampshire police report, DAC Clark imposed very restrictive conditions.[2]

In the fourth inquiry in 2002-2003 a suspect's car and Glenn Vian's house were bugged and conversations recorded.[4] Although as a result of the inquiry the Metropolitan Police obtained evidence that linked a number of individuals to the murder,[4] the Crown Prosecution Service decided that the evidence was insufficient to prosecute anyone.[2]

After the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair declared that the first police inquiry (involving Fillery) was "compromised", a secret fifth inquiry, began.[4]

Detective Superintendent David Cook was appointed to head an inquiry to review the evidence. Because of concerns over connections between Masonic Lodge members and the murder, the 36 police officers appointed to the inquiry team were required to state that they had never been Freemasons.[5] Cook described the murder as "one of the worst-kept secrets in south-east London," claiming that "a whole cabal of people" knew the identity of at least some of those involved. He said that efforts had been made to blacken Morgan's character and dismissed claims that Morgan might have been killed after an affair with a client or because of an involvement with Colombian drug dealers. He identified the main suspects as "white Anglo-Saxons".[2]

Daniel Morgan's brother Alastair who had been critical of police inaction and incompetence expressed confidence in Cook.[2]

In 2006 Jennette Arnold, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and Alastair Morgan's London Assembly constituency representative, described the unsolved murder as "a reminder of the old police culture of corruption and unaccountability" in London.[2]

Bugs were installed at Glenn Vian's home. Police arrested Jonathan Rees and Sid Fillery once again, along with Glenn and Garry Vian and a builder James Cook, all on suspicion of murder, as well as a serving police officer suspected of leaking information.[3] Fillery was arrested on suspicion of attempting to pervert the course of justice.[4]

[edit] Collapse of the 2011 Old Bailey trial

In 2009 the trial of Rees, Fillery, the Vian brothers and Cook began at the Old Bailey. In February 2010 the trial judge dismissed a key supergrass witness and a stay of prosecution was ordered in Fillery's case. In November 2010 a second supergrass witness was dismissed and James Cook was discharged, and in January 2011 yet another supergrass witness was dismissed after accusations that police had failed to disclose that he was a registered police informant.

In March 2011 the Director of Public Prosecutions abandoned the case and Jonathan Rees and his former brothers-in-law were acquitted because the prosecution were unable to guarantee that the defendants' right to a fair trial could be guaranteed. Charges against Fillery and another had already been dropped.[8] The case had not reached the stage of considering whether the defendants had murdered Daniel Morgan, but was still dealing with preliminary issues.[6] The judge, Mr Justice Maddison, noted the case's vastness and complexity,[6] involving some of the longest legal argument submitted in a trial in the English criminal courts.[8] While he considered that the prosecution had been "principled" and "right" to drop the case, the judge observed that the police had had "ample grounds to justify the arrest and prosecution of the defendants".[6]

In the course of the five inquiries some 750,000 documents associated with the case, most of them uncomputerised, had been assembled. Some of these related to evidence provided by the criminal "supergrasses" that the defence claimed was too unreliable to be put to a jury. In March 2011 four additional crates of material not previously disclosed to the defence were found. This followed earlier problems with crates of documents being mislaid and discovered by chance. Nicholas Hilliard QC, appearing for the CPS, acknowledged the police could not be relied upon to ensure access to documents that the defence might require and the prosecution was fatally undermined as a result.[6]

The Metropolitan Police's senior homicide officer, Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, apologised to the family, acknowledging the impact on the case of police corruption in the past. "This current investigation has identified, ever more clearly, how the initial inquiry failed the family and wider public. It is quite apparent that police corruption was a debilitating factor in that investigation."[6]

While indicating a satisfactory relationship with the police officers present, Daniel Morgan's family condemned the way police and the Crown Prosecution Service had investigated the case and their failure to bring anyone to trial. For much of the family's 24-year-long campaign for justice they had encountered "stubborn obstruction and worse at the highest levels of the Metropolitan Police", an impotent police complaints system and "inertia or worse" on the part of successive governments.[6]

[edit] 2011 News of the World "investigative journalism" scandal

See also: News International phone hacking scandal and Jonathan Rees

After the collapse of the Old Bailey trial in March 2011 it was revealed that Jonathan Rees had earned £150,000 a year from the News of the World for supplying illegally obtained information about people in the public eye.[8][9]

After Rees completed his prison sentence for perverting the course of justice, he had been hired again by the News of the World, at the time edited by Andy Coulson.[8] Rees worked regularly on behalf of the Daily Mirror and the Sunday Mirror as well as the News of the World, investigating the bank accounts of the royal family and obtaining information on public figures. He had a network of contacts with corrupt police officers who obtained confidential records for him. He claimed that his extensive contacts provided him with confidential information from banks and government organisations and he was routinely able to obtain confidential data from bank accounts, telephone records, car registration details and computers. He was also alleged to have commissioned burglaries on behalf of journalists.[8]

Despite detailed evidence, the Metropolitan Police failed to pursue effective in-depth investigations into Rees's corrupt relationship with the News of the World over more than a decade. In 2006 the Metropolitan Police accepted the News of the World's disclaimer that the paper's royal correspondent Clive Goodman, who had been sent to prison in 2007 for intercepting the voicemail of the British royal family, had been operating as alone. They did not interview any other News of the World journalists or executives and did not seek a court order allowing them access to News of the World internal records.[8]

In June 2011 The Guardian newspaper, calling for a public inquiry into the News of the World phone-hacking scandal, focused its criticism of the parent company News Corporation's handling of accusations of criminality within the organisation on the newspaper's use of Jonathan Rees's investigative services. Rees's activities were described as a "devastating pattern of illegal behaviour" and far exceeding those of any of the other investigators commissioned by News Corporation who used illicit means to target prominent figures. They included unauthorised access to computer data and bank accounts, corruption of police officers and alleged commissioning of burglaries in pursuit of information about targets at the highest level of state and government, including the royal family and the Cabinet, police chief commissioners, governors of the Bank of England, and the intelligence services. The Guardian queried why the Metropolitan Police had chosen to exclude a very large quantity of Rees material from investigation by its Operation Weeting inquiry into phone hacking.[10]

The Guardian had published extensively on Rees’s involvement with corrupt police officers and the procurement of confidential information for what Guardian journalist Nick Davies described as Rees's one "golden source" of income in particular, commissions from the News of the World. Davies has reported at length on what he described as the "empire of corruption" that Jonathan Rees and Sid Fillery built in the years following Daniel Morgan's murder, after Fillery replaced Morgan as Rees's partner.[4]

Wednesday, 22 February 2012

Sunday, 19 February 2012

My computers have been acting very strangely, since the day belinda McKenzie made that remark about her clever webmaster called Ian being able to follow our electronic footprints. That sounds like hacking to me.

Now hacking is supposed to be illegal. No doubt if I did something like that the police would soon be banging on my door. But, for some strange reason, I don't seem to have access to the justice system if I am attacked. I appear to be some sort of one sided outlaw - expected to obey the laws of the country myself (which I endevour to do to the letter), but not protected myself by those very same laws. And that is weird.

Anyway, I thought it would be a good idea to post one of the blog conversations I have been having recently, on Robert Greens blog.

***********************************************

Wednesday, February 15, 2012Trial on Friday, 17th February This will be my last blog prior to the impending trial.

Since it is difficult to predict what may occur, I would again like to take this opportunity of thanking all of those wonderful people who have supported Hollie, Anne and me throughout this campaign and to those who have attended my many court hearings. To those of you who may be able to come along on Friday, I shall be most grateful and pleased to see you.

My fate is not in the hands of a jury, but of one man, Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen.

Since the trial, it has been discovered that this individual lacked the professional and personal integrity to divulge his relationship, for over ten years, on the board of an organisation with a fellow member who had been cited as a witness for the defence. This relationship on the board lasted until May last year, when Bowen and the cited witness left within 24 hours of each other. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that the two were at least, fairly well acquainted.

Moreover, on Bowen`s intercession, the witness, Elish Angiolini, was prevented from having to attend court and provide answers on oath under cross-examination, hence displaying the prospect of disadvantaging the defence. Given that justice needs to be seen to be done, it would be difficult to argue against the view that Sheriff Bowen was not competent to adjudicate at the trial, owing to a reasonable supposition that a conflict of interest may well be seen to exist.

A formal complaint has been lodged with the appropriate authorities, which has been formally acknowledged today and Bowen will be challenged in court in connection with his failure to disclose. One would hope that under Scottish Law, the requirement to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in court extends to members of the judiciary.

Bowen`s conduct so far has been instrumental in my having a criminal record inflicted upon me and the prospect of a prison sentence, quite apart from the way my human rights have been persistently breached from the time of my initial arrest.

It may be a good time to note, in comparison, a few examples of how actual sex offenders in Scotland are treated.

This week it was announced that Liam Gibson, described as one of Scotland`s most notorious purveyors of child pornography, was spared a jail sentence despite Lothian & Borders Police discovering 50,000 images of child pornography at his home.

In 2009, Douglas Haggarty QC, a senior member of the Legal Aid Board with the responsibility and influence in deciding if I should be granted legal aid, was found to have committed a sexual act with a 17-year-old male prostitute in the public toilet of British Home Stores, St Enoch Centre, Glasgow on a Saturday afternoon at a time when the store was full of families out shopping. Mr Haggarty was not only spared prison, but was allowed to retain his lucrative job in a position of public trust.

In 2001, when Elish Angiolini was busy covering up over Hollie`s allegations, in an unrelated case, a 22-year-old man who admitted to raping a 10-year-old girl and 7-year-old boy was allowed to walk free. This was reported in The Times and The Telegraph in May of that year. Angiolini was subsequently forced into a public apology for her incompetence. This monumental blunder did not prevent her climbing to the highest office in the justice system.

Then, of course, we can mention the repeated Grampian Police and Crown Office failings over the Hollie Greig case. At the outset, Hollie`s father should have been arrested and had his computer seized, as Dr Frances Kelly`s medical examination, accepted by Grampian Police, supported Hollie`s allegations within three weeks of Hollie first making them in May 2000.

All this may be of some interest when my sentence is announced. In this Kafkaesque country, where right is wrong and wrong is right , the indications are that anyone who exposes police failures and tries to protect children from being raped is likely to be much more seriously dealt with than the actual perpetrators.

The eminent Ian Hamilton QC described the way that Scotland is currently being governed as being akin to fascism. It is an opinion that is not easy to disagree with.,Scotland is a fine country with some of the most decent and humane people you are likely to find anywhere on Earth. It is so sad that its governance has fallen into the hands of a cabal whose members have characters that are diametrically at odds with the best traditions of those of the overwhelming majority of Scottish people.

Thank you all and God bless you. Posted by Robert Green at 1:33 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook140 comments: Sarah McLeodFeb 15, 2012 10:10 AMWell said Robert! and the best of luck and best wishes on FridayReplyDeleteReplies6 M C KFeb 15, 2012 02:18 PMyep totally agreeDeleteReplyhttp://www.youtube.com/user/MyRootsAreEarthy?gl=USFeb 15, 2012 11:58 AMRobert, can't afford the travel, but I will pray for you, mate.

All the Best

Robin WearnReplyDeleteEng65Feb 15, 2012 01:45 PMRobert, i have met you several times in the past, and i know your heart is in the right place. Unfortunately, there are those in society, even though they have children themselves show little respect for them their position comes first.

What does that say about them? We know that if Hollie had been the child of someone influential, there would be no stop to find and prosecute the culprits of their Childs abuse.

Sadly, the celebrities who exist today and who many have come from nothing have done nothing to help highlight the treatment of ordinary people, but they will not refuse their money. God Bless Robert.ReplyDeletesteevTat2Feb 15, 2012 02:18 PMGood luck on Friday Robert.ReplyDeleterico sordaFeb 15, 2012 03:08 PMAll the very best Mr Green

rsReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 15, 2012 03:12 PMHope tomorrow goes ok. I am not a traitor, I am a Pindown abuse and secret family court abuse survivor who got stitched up by some people pretending to be against child abuse.ReplyDeleteRepliesFalsely AccusedFeb 16, 2012 01:41 AMVery sorry to hear your story Zoompad. Hope you can find happiness and contentment.DeleteReplyEx-Senator Stuart SyvretFeb 15, 2012 04:34 PMRobert, from one who has walked a remarkably similar path to yours - including arrest, prosecution and imprisonment at the hands of an overtly corrupted and politicised prosecution system and judiciary - know that you are in my thoughts.

I was jailed for two months - at the hands of a recently appointed magistrate who had been amongst the very public officials I had been exposing via public interest disclosures for failing to deal properly with child protection failures.

Of course it can't be anything other than a daunting prospect at first - but if it's any consolation, you will find prison not so bad. My fellow inmates knew who I was and why I had been jailed - and they were all excellent company.

You will discover far more basic, plain decency on the average prison wing than would ever be encountered amongst politicians, prosecutors, lawyers or judges.

On one occasion I was driven in shackles from the prison to make an appeal concerning the existence of a key witness the Jersey judiciary had concealed from my defence. On that occasion I said to the court, "after now having spent so much time in the close company of liars, spivs, villains, con-men and gangsters - being in prison is actually quite a refreshing break after all those years in politics."

My appeal - even though starkly evidenced - was rejected; but, hey - we have to laugh at these clowns. More and more ordinary people are starting to see - through cases such as ours - that the emperors of the British judiciary can be very naked indeed.

Stuart Syvret.Former Senator and former Minister for Health & Social Services.ReplyDeleteRepliesjohnFeb 16, 2012 12:24 PMStuart, you've done your bit, and can hold your head high. It's a shame that Graham Power didn't follow up his affidavit. Very few people get the chance to stand up to these sickos, trouble is that they think they are normal.DeleteJoFeb 17, 2012 02:27 AMStuart,

I have been a supporter of yours from day one. In the early days I never imagined what was to follow. It is such malevolent conduct on the part of the establishment as well as being unlawful.

After my experiences with a certain group of people, I have often said there are more honest people in prison. Those that parade around as pillars of society and purport to be "fine upstanding citizens" are generally rotten to the core. They look after each other at the expense of the honest individuals no matter what.

It appears that the powers that be in Jersey and Scotland all prefer to wash whiter than white than to deal with these sickos appropriately.

I think you deserve recognition for being tough enough to stand up to them. May you get justice for the victims and for yourself.

JoDeleteReplyFalsely AccusedFeb 16, 2012 12:14 AMMr Green may be acting with the best of intentions in trying to expose a failure to gain justice for Hollie Greig. However, speaking as someone who was falsely accused of rape 20 years ago, his actions in accusing people of being paedophiles when he has produced no evidence of dates, locations etc is utterly reprehensible. He ought to consider himself lucky that there is not a more serious criminal charge available than Breach of the Peace.

TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT.ReplyDeleteRepliesjohnFeb 16, 2012 12:32 PMI presume then that your case was thoroughly investigated by the Police, unlike Hollie Greigs. This is the whole point about Robert's actions, a proper investigation by the Police into the allegations needs to be made. If the people named are innocent, then they have nothing to fear. Of course a lot of the evidence has now disappeared by now, but a Leopard can't change it's spots.DeleteFalsely AccusedFeb 17, 2012 12:19 AMMy case was investigated by the police, Hollies was not. That was wrong. It was also wrong for Mr Green to name the alleged paedophiles. It adds nothing to the case to have named them rather than to have said x number of people were alleged to have been paedophiles and were not investigated. Other than saying that Hollie named these people, Mr Green has not produced any evidence against the vast majority of the people named.Delete6 M C KFeb 17, 2012 10:57 AMAgreed FA he could have named the sherrif and left it at that but the sentence today is out of all proportionDeleteReplyFalsely AccusedFeb 16, 2012 12:22 AMhttp://www.false-allegations.org.uk/

For anyone else who may have been affected by false allegations. Unfortunately we are not living in a cartoon world of goodies and baddies. Real life is a hell of a lot more complicated than that, and rather than trying to whip up hysteria online, people might think about soberly reflecting on their own actions and motivations in this case.ReplyDeleteRepliesjohnFeb 16, 2012 12:39 PMI have soberly relected on my own actions and motivations. I have never been affected by false allegations, and do not live in 'Looney Tune' land. Now, what was the point of your comment?DeleteReplyFalsely AccusedFeb 16, 2012 12:24 AMhttp://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2641287

A WITNESS told a murder trial yesterday he watched a man “crumple” during an attack by three of the accused.

Colin McGregor said he had seen the man punched, kicked and knocked down with a bike as one of the attackers called him a “paedo”.

The 24-year-old was giving evidence at the High Court in Aberdeen at the trial of five people accused of killing 57-year-old Gordon Morrice by assaulting him at an Aberdeen playing field.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT FOR MR GREEN AND OTHERS.ReplyDeleteRepliesjohnFeb 16, 2012 12:45 PMIf this news item has any bearing on the Hollie Greig case, then why don't you be more specific.DeleteFalsely AccusedFeb 17, 2012 12:22 AMA man was murdered in Aberdeen in June 2010 by a lynch mob who accused him of being a paedophile. This was just a few months after Mr Green's arrest for making allegations that a number of people were paedophiles.DeleteReplyFalsely AccusedFeb 16, 2012 12:42 AMThe unfortunate reality is that while the public will be sympathetic to rape victims the issue of false allegations is largely swept under the carpet. You will never see a plot line about false accusations in EastEnders.

I think that the majority of people who make false allegations are probably damaged and vulnerable and have often been abuse victims themselves in the past.

For people in my situation it is very hurtful to see Mr Green treated as some sort of hero when he has named people as paedophiles yet not produced any evidence. I think he is quite right to expose what happened to Hollie but why did he have to name names ?

It is because of the stigma attached to being accused of being a rapist that I do not post under my real name.ReplyDeleteRepliesjohnFeb 16, 2012 12:51 PMMy God! You really are a total waste of space! However, despite my total abhorrance for you....I think I love you. Are you male or female? This is quite important with regards to us having a child together.DeleteReplyZoompadFeb 16, 2012 03:25 AMI haven't made any false accusations. What would be the point of a Christian doing that? God sees everything, at the end of the day God will judge everything.

I doubt that there are many people who make false allegations about rape. It would be the worst way ever of making money fraudulently, so you would have to be pretty stupid to go down that road. It is so much more profitable to make money from porn and there's less chance of getting jailed for it nowadays as well.ReplyDeleteRepliesFalsely AccusedFeb 16, 2012 03:51 AMZoompad - I did not mean to suggest in anyway that you made false allegations and I am sorry for not making this crystal clear.

Nobody can say either how many people are raped or how many people make false allegations of rape. In any case, whatever the numbers are, both are very serious crimes which seem to have a long-lasting effect on the victims.DeleteNigelFeb 16, 2012 11:54 AMBut people do make false allegations all the time. Maliciously, and there are a lot of reasons for it not only the belief that they will be compensated. That does not mean that you did make any false allegations not at all, just that it does not help the argument to deny the sheer volume of wrongful accusations. And the family courts are riddled with them.DeleteZoompadFeb 16, 2012 01:06 PMYes, people do make false allegations all the time, like the paedophiles who swear blind that they didn't rape children, and that the child was gagging for it. False allegations like that are rife.DeleteReplyZoompadFeb 16, 2012 03:33 AMStuart, I've said this privatly to you, but I'm saying it to you in front of witnesses now. You made a mistake in trusting John Hemmings MP.

For Heavens sake, the Orees were ganging up on me for two years on Mothers for Justice, because I was posting the TRUTH about Richard Gardner and Ralph Underwager. They also went over to my YouTube channel to pour out they hatred on there as well. They called me a nutter, Zoomfreak, lesbian, man hater, they hated me because I had found out about who invented False Memory Syndrome and Parental Alienation Syndrome.

John Hemmings was also on Mothers for Justice and other forums where they were pouring out their venom towards me. Stuart, if it would have been you, you would not have allowed me to be bullied so. The difference between you and John hemming MP is that you are a decent and truthful man and he is not!ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 16, 2012 04:10 AMYou would have to be stark staring bonkers to make false allegations of rape in this day and age, seeing as so few rape allegations - even child rape - don't get investigated properly.

When you have judges who think that buying a new bicycle for a child who has been raped is going to compensate for the awful crime.

Robert, you should look back at who has been advising you these last few years. I will tell you what these devils do.

They worm their way in to a genuine campaign, and they get key people to believe certain things. They tried to do exactly the same to me on Mothers for Justice - it was the people who had been caught up in Operation Ore. They kept posting that Gordon Brown was one of the people netted in the investigations, and also Tony Blair. They were very insistant about these allegations.

I did not believe at all that Gordon Brown was a paedophile, not ever. I must admit, I did start to waver about the accusations about Tony Blair, but I don't believe that now either. But they were desperatly trying to make us believe those things. I think what they wanted was to goad me into making false allegations, then, POUNCE! They would have had me, proved me to be a liar and a fantasist.

Falsely Accused, I don't know who you are. Would you mind not being so anonymous, thanks.ReplyDeleteRepliesFalsely AccusedFeb 16, 2012 04:22 AMZoompad - I prefer to maintain anonymity as I am talking about personal matters. I admire you for your bravery in not hiding your own identity.DeletejohnFeb 16, 2012 12:56 PMOh Sweet F.A. I am distressed that you want anonymity. How are we going to procreate if A)I don't know your gender, and B)your contact details.Are you listed in the 'Lonely hearts' column of Private Eye?DeleteReplyZoompadFeb 16, 2012 04:21 AMThese rotten devils have even written a book about how they tricked the police. It's called THE APPALLING VISTA by Brian Rothery, and is a free download. I don't know why the crafty swine have left it available for download for so long, as it exposes them for what they are. I have been nagging as many people as possible - including Robert - to read it, but I don't think many people could be bothered, after all, I'm just the gobby religious nutter in the corner, why should anyone take any notice of what I have got to say?

All the police who investigated Operation Ore should be reading that book, as it shows how they destroyed the police investigation. Just as Operation Rectangle was attacked and discredited, and Stuart Syvret pout into prison!

WHY OH WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP TRUSTING THE SAME CREEPY RASCALS?????ReplyDeleteRepliesjohnFeb 16, 2012 01:02 PMI knew of Operation Ore, but not this publication. I will definitely give it a read. Here's a full link to the book.http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=111DeleteZoompadFeb 17, 2012 04:50 AMThanks. I was just so angry when I read that book. Read it carefully all the way through and you will understand why, I'm sure.DeleteReplyZoompadFeb 16, 2012 04:47 AMI didn't have any choice! I was getting persecuted in the secret family courts, if I would have remained anonymous most likely I would be dead now!

I had to shout what happened to me from the rooftops, so that I didn't end up as an anonymnous statistic of people who have been persecuted to death for being unfortunate enough to end up in one of those stinking hell holes known as the Pindown children's homes.

I dread to think how many people have died of trauma because of Pindown. We are treated like lepers and human scum. I have only just managed to obtain a copy of the Allan Levy QC Pindown report for crying out loud!ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 16, 2012 04:50 AMI haven't asked for and don't want your admiration "Falsely Accused". I don't like anonymous people, because too many anonymous people have played Janus tricks on me.ReplyDeleteReplies6 M C KFeb 17, 2012 10:55 AMZoompad we get it ,now if you dont mind not hogging this blog for a few decades that would be great,

IF GOD REALLY EXISTED HE WOULDNT HAVE LET YOU BE ABUSED

nO FATHER WOULD FREE WILL OR NOT SO PLEASE ,PRETTY PLEASE ...DeleteReplyZoompadFeb 16, 2012 06:42 AMCHRIS SALTRESE IS IN THE APPALLING VISTA BY BRIAN ROTHERY, HE WAS THE DEFENCE SOLICITOR, WAKEY WAKEY!ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 16, 2012 06:45 AMCHRIS SALTRESE SOLICITORS - FROM HIS WEB PAGE:

Helpline providing advice and support regarding all kinds of false allegations including adult relationship/acquaintance accusations.

Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers (FACT)

Formed through the historic trawl allegations against residential care workers and teachers, FACT provides general advice and information on work related allegations, together with campaign and lobbying information, a media and parliamentary update and conferences.

HOW MANY MORE YEARS HAVE I GOT TO SHOUT ABOUT RICHARD GARDNER AND RALPH UNDERWAGER?

IS THERE ANYONE EVEN LISTENING?

GOD HELP US!ReplyDeleteRantletFeb 16, 2012 07:17 PMMatt Quinn is being rather hypocritical in alleging that Ms MacKenzie is acting illegally in her actions with respect to Robert's trial!

Matt Quinn has himself broken the law in conducting a blog commentary on a case that is currently "sub judice", and as such is in contempt of court.

What will "your" defence be to that, Mr Quinn?

Take the plank out of your own eye Matt.

ps. Your knowledge of the law is laughable. Don't try and set yourself up as an authority here. You're just embarrassing yourself.....ReplyDeleteRepliesClydeside TelevisionFeb 17, 2012 05:43 AMRantlet - There is no plank in MY eye... YOU though obviously have a picture to paint, and agenda to push - and perhaps a bit more studying to do!

And you should note that contemporaneous reporting of events in the public court is perfectly permissible, encouraged even; indeed it is a central pillar of the process. Court reports may cover only what the court has seen and heard and must be accurate and fair... but they are NOT barred!

So... MY defence 'to that'? (ROFLMAO) Simple...

"a substantial risk of serious prejudice" to the proceedings... That is the line that can't be crossed when reporting active cases. And as this was a summmary process it's actually quite a well defined line... More of a low wall in fact!

Professional judges are considered largely to be immune from being prejudiced by what they see and hear outside of the courtroom... Summary trial = professional judge.

Go back and examine my Blog. Pre trial I simply say that I am not aware of any evidence that meets the mens rea and actus reus of the charge... And call for the charges to be dropped.

Pre-trial my blog in fact simply poses questions as to the basis on which the prosecution against Green was constructed. It comments and reacts to material coming forth from both Greg Lance-Watkins and Green's camp...

Much of which actually has absolutely nothing to do with the upcoming trial...

At no point have I named names, examined prosecution evidence etc... In fact there is nothing really beyond a general examination of the charge of Breach of The Peace and how, in general, it needs to be defended...

And there is absolutely nothing beyond that general examination directly relatated to the case... In fact my blog in its entirety simply examines matters that have been published and written by other people...

This IS actually quite deliberate...

Once the trial is underway you will find reports largely reflecting on information which:

a) Has already been heard in open court...

b) Has already been reported by other outlets...

Again; I was VERY careful to ensure my reports were accurate, contemporary to the past proceedings etc etc...

Once a person has been convicted, whether or not they have been sentenced, proceedings cease to be ‘active' and there is much more scope for commenting on the proceedings and making comments about the convicted person/publishing material which it was not possible to disseminate before or during the trial.

- That fact that I might be 'embarssing myself' in the eyes of uneducated, dishonest, damages and downright stupid individuals really doesn't trouble me in the slightest...

"If it weren't for Robert and his brave and busy efforts to get this case known, you, Matt Quinn, wouldn't have the knowledge of this case to spend your feckless days typing illegal and contemptuous accounts of it on your blog.

Am I right?"

Not by a VERY long chalk! -In fact only a fraction of the material avaialble to me has come from within the 'Green' camp... And much of what does emerge is not remotely accurate...

But if YOU feel I have broken any laws then I am sure you know how a telephone works - So just you toddle off and phone the Feds if you like...DeleteClydeside TelevisionFeb 17, 2012 09:39 AMhttp://www.independentproducerhandbook.co.uk/download.php?id=33DeleteReplyRantletFeb 16, 2012 07:21 PMSomeone should report Matt Quinn for contempt of court for breaching reporting rules on a case that is currently "sub judice"!

Seriously. Matt Quinn is simply a bed-fellow of Belinda MacKenzie and Greg Lance Watkins. A trio of cretins if ever I saw one.....ReplyDeleteRantletFeb 16, 2012 07:35 PMAnd for Matt Quinn to criticise Robert in this matter is laughable too.

If it weren't for Robert and his brave and busy efforts to get this case known, you, Matt Quinn, wouldn't have the knowledge of this case to spend your feckless days typing illegal and contemptuous accounts of it on your blog.

Am I right?ReplyDeleteReplies6 M C KFeb 18, 2012 05:14 AMno Matt was right , as was Robert , he could have pulled it off if he hadn't named the ring and just the sherrif he may have pulled it offDeleteReplyJoFeb 17, 2012 02:29 AMRobert,

I am thinking of you and hope it goes well.

As I said on the phone earlier in the week, I vote for a celebration party when it is over.

Jo.ReplyDeleteSarah McLeodFeb 17, 2012 05:31 AMRobert has been sentenced to one yearReplyDeleteRepliesClydeside TelevisionFeb 17, 2012 05:45 AMThat Is VERY harsh indeed...DeleteReplyZoompadFeb 17, 2012 05:41 AMWhich prison is he in?ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 17, 2012 06:02 AMWhen the news comes out of which prison Robert Green is in I might write a handwritten letter to the prison governor, just to check Robert Green is actually there. I certainly won't be typing one, as that is far too dangerous, given all the creepy people circling round like vultures.ReplyDeleteSarah McLeodFeb 17, 2012 06:14 AMRobert Green has been given a 1 year jail sentence by Sheriff Principle Bowen.

This is broken down as 9 months for Breach of the Peace, and a further 3 months for Breach of Bail Conditions.

Robert is said to have called out to his supporters as he was being led down

"Don’t worry about me, I shall be fine"ReplyDeleteSarah McLeodFeb 17, 2012 06:20 AMIf I go down, could you tell people that david.mowat.mp@parliament.uk is the address to contact.

RobertReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 17, 2012 06:27 AMNever mind David Mowat MP Sarah, I won't be writing to him for any reason, can you please just tell us anti child abuse campaingers and victims of abuse which prison Robert Green has been taken to, thanks. I just want to write to the prison governor and make sure Robert Green really is taken there and that he is ok. Just post the prison address up, if you don't mind.ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 17, 2012 09:43 AMIs anyone there? Can someone please answer the above question? Which prison has Robert Green allegedly been taken to?

Surely someone must know!ReplyDeleteSarah McLeodFeb 17, 2012 10:03 AMI have no conformation Robert will go here but this serves the area

http://www.sps.gov.uk/Prisons/Aberdeen/aberdeen.aspxReplyDelete6 M C KFeb 17, 2012 11:26 AMThis comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDeletePyriteFeb 17, 2012 02:06 PMThis is not a time to rejoice and celebrate......but i think i will hang around for a while as I'm sure your post was directed towards myself.ReplyDelete6 M C KFeb 17, 2012 02:19 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zt5pbUkgPo&feature=related

still if you go fishing with turdsReplyDeleteSarahFeb 17, 2012 08:02 PMInteresting name "Pyrite", Malcolm Webster was reportedly called "Pyro" in the scouts due to his love of fires.

Websters first wife was murdered by him in Aberdeen in a car which was then set on fire.

Hollies uncle Roy was also found dead in a burning car in Nov 1997 in Aberdeen.

A nurse and off shore rig worker happened upon him and tried to save him apparently. Hollie's 'father' worked on a rig and Webster was a nurse.

Some of those named by Hollie as her abusers where friends of Websters and appeared at his trial.

Yes Alex Salmond Scotland must have more independence - so that your government, senior police, Crown prosecutors and 'justices' can carry on protecting 'elite' murderers and child abusers without any interference from London.

What about Lockerbie and Dunblane? Cover-ups of the most diabolical of crimes.ReplyDeleteJoFeb 18, 2012 02:07 AMI spoke to Robert on 9th February last. This was to with him well and that justice would prevail. I never imagined that the system would be so perverse and corrupt as to imprison him for 12 months.

That is the reason I said that we should have a party when it is over, I thought this would be on 18 February when Robert would be over his terrible ordeal. Hindsight tells me that I was far too optimistic, especially in view of the characters involved in this case. They are the lowest of the low life scum on the planet.

I have seen that Robert is being held in HMP Aberdeen. The address is: Craiginches, 4 Grampian Palce, Aberdeen AB11 8FN.

It is usually the case that you have to provide a prison number to write, or make contact.

Robert did say that if this happened, he would go on hunger strike. Apart from this, in view of the obvious involvement of the Freemasons in this all the way through and the fact that Aberdeen is a Freemason infested swamp, makes me fear for his safety.

We need to organise something to make the mainstream media report this. Any ideas?

The British state cannot criticise other so called "repressive" states as Bahrain, Syria, Libya etc when it is no better itself. Robert is a political prisoner.

JoReplyDeleteMagna Carta Society BlogFeb 18, 2012 03:33 AMRobert agreed to trial by Sherriff, not jury, at his hearing in March last year. That was clearly a mistake. What caused him to take that decision is another matter.ReplyDeleteRepliesClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 04:21 AMHe AGREED did he?

Paraphrased from:

www.ejcl.org/103/art103-8.doc

"“As has already been noted, the choice of court and type of procedure under which to bring a prosecution is entirely within the discretion of the prosecutor. The accused/victim has no right to object to this decision. Thus the accused cannot elect to have a jury trial in Scotland, as he would be able to in England and Wales, at least in relation to certain offences.”

“The choice between solemn or summary procedure and of the court in which prosecution is to take place is almost entirely within the discretion of the prosecutor. One exception to this is that murder, treason, rape, breach of duty by magistrates and deforcement of court messengers must be prosecuted under solemn procedure in the High Court.

There are also certain common law offences that cannot be tried in the district court – these are all relatively serious offences, such as culpable homicide (manslaughter), robbery, fire-raising (arson), certain aggravated assaults, theft by housebreaking (burglary) and uttering forged documents.

In addition to this, certain offences that have been created by statute can, under the terms of that statute, only be prosecuted under either summary or solemn procedure. For example, it is the case that many minor road traffic offences can be prosecuted only under summary procedure.”DeleteClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 04:29 AMFrom Elsewhere -

http://www.lindsaysolicitors.co.uk/where-do-i-stand.html

"The prosecution decide which procedural route the case will follow. There is no right in Scotland for an accused person to ask for trial by jury."

Breach of the peace generally IS a summary cause to come before the court... There is NOTHING remotely unusual about Green's trial in this respect.

Elsewhere I've seen a coment from (IIRC) Belinda McKenzie that id a certain crank quasi-lawyer had been involved there would have been 'none of this summary trial nonsense' - Complete and utter cast-iron bull!Delete6 M C KFeb 18, 2012 04:56 AMYep Matt the magna carta mob could ALL have done what Robert did and handed out the same leaflets ,if say 20 of them had done so and then got arrested then they could have evoked the Magna carta en masse ,the fact that NONE have done so nor will do so speaks volumes ,everyone of them are bullshitting blowhards who are quite happy to talk the talk but not walk the walk.DeleteClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 05:09 AM"Unfortunate and Unnecessary" was the comment I saw from one legal expert on Robert's conviction.

It could and SHOULD have been avoided. The erroneous decision on Robert's part was; instead of taking the less glamorous but cogent route towards PROPERLY resisting prosecution and getting Hollie's case on a rational footing... Where it COULD be reported and explored.

He was persuaded to play to the conspiracy circus crowd...

It's hard to work out how or if the now several and various matters can be taken forward rationally now...DeleteReplyZoompadFeb 18, 2012 04:17 AM"Robert agreed to trial by Sherriff, not jury, at his hearing in March last year. That was clearly a mistake. "

That has to be the understatement of the year!!!!! What on earth has been going on?????ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 04:19 AM"It is usually the case that you have to provide a prison number to write, or make contact."

Ok then, well, will someone please hurry up and post that up as well?ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 04:42 AMIsn't Raymond St Clair that chap who is involved in the UK Column who has had a string of failed business ventures?ReplyDelete6 M C KFeb 18, 2012 04:43 AMZOOMPAD who the FUCK do you think you are ? Do you think we are here to answer your beck and call so you can just rant on.You clearly have nothing else to do so how about getting off the computer which you seem to think is possessed and find out yourselfReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 05:16 AM6MCK, I could ask you the same question. Who are you?

You already know who I am. I am Barbara Richards, a lady who was unfortunate enough to end up in a Pindown childrens home on a place of safety order, after trying to run away from being abused. I got persecuted because of being a Pindown survivor, I can't get proper NHS treatment, because of the cover up, because people instead of being sorry about what happened to us who were in Pindown they tried to cover it all up and wrote bad things in our records so that meant we got treated as if we were evil from birth, and I even got sent for "therapy" to one of the places where I was abused as a child, which ended up in me having a massive panic attack and being taken to hospital. And I had a solicitor called Richard Wise who was trying to help all us Pindown survivors, I just wanted a normal or normalish life, without having to be terrified all the time, but Richard Wise died before he could help me, while I was being persecuted in the secret courts. I got sucked in to the UK Column lies about them caring about stopping child abuse, and I am not very happy about being stitched up and lied to.

I am asking some perfectly reasonable questions here. Robert always said he was trying to stop paedophilia and child abuse. Why are you swearing at me for just wanting to know where he is, and wanting to check that he is ok? All I want to do is write to the prison governor and check he really is ok, and here you are having a right go at me, and I dont know who you are! Who are you?ReplyDeleteReplies6 M C KFeb 18, 2012 06:53 AMsays you ya nutter , I SPOKE TO ROBERT THE NIGHT BEFORE HE GOT SENT DOWN ,SO DONT WORRY , AS FOR YOU YOU SELF SEEKING NUT CASE FUCK THE FUCK OFFDeleteReplyZoompadFeb 18, 2012 05:21 AMOr are you angry because I said about Ray St Clair's failed business ventures? Is that why you've started effing and blinding at me?ReplyDeleteClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 05:29 AMBarbara... As was the case when I myself 'lost the head' with you...

All we here from you is "ME! ME! ME! ME!"

- YOUR experiences don't make you uniquely qualified to be concerned about these issues. Other people have had terrible experiences too. They don't all choose to assume that qualifies them as the centre of the universe...

YOUR experiences have NOTHING to do with Hollie Greig, Robert Green etc... If you've a personal agenda to promote I believe you have your own blog - simply sign off each post with a link to it if you must.

- You ARE being unreasonably demanding! You're NOT special and have no rights to be demanding that other people "hurry up" and meet your needs...

IF you're so desperate - Get up off your own backside; phone the prison authorities in Aberdeen - DO THE LEGWORK instead of constantly making demands for others to spoon feed you...

We do realise you're left very unwell and damaged by your experiences. But you are wearing people's patience to the point they are exhausted and WILL stop even hearing what you're saying...ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 05:53 AM"All we here from you is "ME! ME! ME! ME!"

Not rising to your bait either Matt Quinn. Wondering what your interest is in the Robert Green saga, as you seem pretty obsessed about it. Unlike me, you don't seem to have any real reason for being so.ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 05:57 AMI'm asking these perfectly reasonable questions of the Hollie Greig team, who have "supported" and "advised" him during all this:

1) Where is he?

2) What's his prison number?ReplyDeleteRepliesClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 06:04 AM"I'm asking these perfectly reasonable questions of the Hollie Greig team, who have "supported" and "advised" him during all this:

1) Where is he?

2) What's his prison number?"

Go look at the HDJ site you Muppet! - As soon as it's public knowledge it'll be published!!!

It's not normal for prisoners sentenced on a Friday to be processed until Monday! He'll be with Grampian Police 'till then... And there is every chance he'll wind up a Lowmoss near Glasgow rather than Aberdeen...DeleteReplyClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 06:01 AMOh Sorry Barbara... There's me forgetting you're the centre of the universe again...

I have good enough reason to be concerned by failings in the Scottish justice system and by abusers being still able to ply their vile trade... And again; were you not so self centred you'd be able to glean some of those from past writing...

The North Glasgow ring; run out of Glasgow in the late 70's? A good friend of mine took his own life as the result of being abused by that ring. Likewise the forced adoption issue - I have five adopted siblings. Adopted to keep them OUT of the sort of institutions you ran away from - Of the five only one had no living parents...

I could go on - at length - but then I DON'T imagine the universe is in orbit around ME! ME! ME!ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 06:07 AMMatt Quinn,

I suggest that if you need a target for your aggression that you get on ebay and treat yourself to a punchbag and pair of boxing gloves.

You're aye quick to give sage advice to others but not to yourself... You're a long long way from 'reasonable'. It wasn't ME who asked you earlier who the F*** you think you are...

And it's quite telling that while we're all supposed to fall down and weep at your feet for YOUR suffering you just ignore other people's...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Huntly

Lowmoss is closed apparently!

If you'd bothered looking around you'd have found HDJ has some info...

Perhaps you'd like everyone else to ring the number on your behalf?DeleteReplyZoompadFeb 18, 2012 06:12 AMWell, is anyone going to actually say where Robert Green is now, or has he been sucked into some sort of black hole?

He must be somewhere!

If he isn't at a prison, where is he?

I never heard of a convicted prisoner not being taken straight to prison before, into some sort of secret location that nobody is allowed to know about. I know that happens to minors, but Robert Green has grey hair and a fair share of wrinkles - or perhaps someone has got him mixed up with Jimmy Clitheroe!ReplyDeleteRepliesClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 06:18 AM"I never heard of a convicted prisoner not being taken straight to prison before, into some sort of secret location that nobody is allowed to know about."

What part of go and look at the HDJ site was unclear?

By the time the courts close on a Friday the clerical staff at SPS have closed up for the weekend. He won't be transferred to SPS 'till Monday...

With luck they might even send him to an English prison for the sake of his family.DeleteReplyZoompadFeb 18, 2012 06:17 AMMatt, you should close your eyes and count to ten before you post on blogs.There's just no need for all the rudeness, name calling and yelling at people, really there isn't.ReplyDeleteRepliesClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 06:19 AMYes there is when someone is as self-centred and lazy as YOU madam...

I made the point, at quite an early stage, that absuing the criminal law to perform the function of the civil law was a possible abuse of process.

i.e. Buchanan et all using the BOP charge to effectivedly silence green when the perfectly adequate civil remedy of defamation was available.

This actually flies in the face of stated UK policy which has been moving away from criminal defamation where it exists...

So; certainly - despite my criticism of Green in not presenting a cogent defence - the authorities are certainly to be criticised in terms of an attack on freedom of speech...DeleteReplyZoompadFeb 18, 2012 06:45 AM"Yes there is when someone is as self-centred and lazy as YOU madam"

This would be the same caution you used when you accused me of being an English Police official would it?

From HDJ...

"Robert has not yet arrived at Craiginches and is apparently still in police custody. Craiginches seemed to think he would not arrive till Monday and advised me to phone Queen Street police station.

Could others please phone and ask to know where he is and how we can contact him? Number is 0845 600 5700.

When he does arrive at Craiginches if indeed that is where he’s being sent he will be given a prison number. To communicate with anyone in prison you always need their prison number.

If anyone finds out any more please let us know."

NOT that it would have been TOO difficult to work out where he might have been taken from the SPS website...ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 06:55 AMDone it. Thanks VFC.ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 07:03 AM"This would be the same caution you used when you accused me of being an English Police official would it?"

I did not accuse you of being Matt Tapp, but I let my guard down and allowed others to suggest to me that you were, and I wondered if you and he were the same man, for which I apologised about. And, as there were people fanning certain flames, just as happened when certain people repeatedly tried (unsuccessfully) to convince me that the PM was a paedophile.

I am not Superwoman, and I get things wrong sometimes.

I apologised to you for mistakenly thinking you were possibly Matt Tapp, and you accepted my apology, and you apologised to me for the tirade you ranted about me.

As a Christian I will certainly accept the apology you will be having to make, after you have had a few cups of tea and calmed down a little, about your latest outburst, as the Lord Jesus told us to forgive seventy times seven and it will only be two so far.ReplyDeleteClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 08:11 AMAnd what I've said to you today is for your own good, perfectly accurate... You are not being honest with yourself Barbara; about a lot of things. And if you were half the Christian you claim to be you'd know why I have to respond this way.ReplyDeleteMagna Carta Society BlogFeb 18, 2012 09:32 AMReply to Clydeside Television re Roberts agreeing to Jury trial.

He failed to challenge the Procurator Fiscals decision to change the charges to ones which did not allow Jury Trial. He sat looking at a stained glass window above the Sherriffs chair when this was agreed to by his Advocate. He had the option of sacking his Advocate and making the challenge, which he had agreed to do before the hearing. He failed to do so. Several supporters made an outburst in the public gallery which he disregarded. The reasons why he behaved like this are a matter of speculation at the present time and are being investigated.ReplyDeleteRepliesClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 11:21 AMIn fact understanding was acknowledged by his avocate... Neither an accused person nor his representative has any right or say with what they are actually charged. He could have sacked the advocate yes; what difference would that have made?

ANOTHER delay? ANOTHER Legal Aid application? The PF still calls the tune I'm afraid no matter what your extensive viewing of "Rumpole" might indicate to the contrary...

Again;

http://www.lindsaysolicitors.co.uk/where-do-i-stand.html

"The prosecution decide which procedural route the case will follow. There is no right in Scotland for an accused person to ask for trial by jury."

It would be ENTIRELY the wont of the prosecution as to whether the process was solemn or summary. Now; you can cross check that with as many sources as you like and you'll find I'm correct...

Fact is Scotland has always had its own legal system... and in fact the Scottish Parliament was never dissolved as such - It just didn't meed for a helluva long time...

Throws up all sorts of odd issues!DeleteReplyRantletFeb 18, 2012 09:48 AMMatt Quinn is wrong to suggest that Robert was/is in breach of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 with regard to naming Hollie Greig.

Under the Act, a victim of a sexual assault can waive their right to anonymity, and therefore allow the reporting of their name and other details that they wish to be in the public domain. In this case, this is exactly what has happened. Hollie and/or her mother, acting as legal guardian, have permitted their names to be used publicly by Robert and other anti-abuse campaigners.

I thought it was important to point out the factual and legal mistakes Matt Quinn is employing to smear Robert.

Please continue.ReplyDeleteRepliesClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 11:11 AMHollie may well have given up that right - What about the other alleged co-abused who were also named?

Remember; protection applies to both victims and alleged victims no matter who made the allegation...DeleteClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 11:25 AMAnd incidentally - it is this very naming of the alleged co-abused that places the question mark over why Green was persecuted ( a line I've held all along) yet Greg Lance-Watkins sits free and easy...

HE being FAR more instrumental in causing the alleged distress these people supposedly suffered...DeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 11:28 AMAs far as I am aware, none of the other victims have been named publicly.DeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 11:29 AMYou really are having a good root around for stones to throw, aren't you Matt Quinn.DeleteClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 11:30 AMOh! And one more point - Only a person with capacity (which I believe Hollie has) can give this consent... A guardian CAN'T!!DeleteClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 11:36 AMhttp://holliegreig.info/2010/01/aberdeen-paedophile-ring/

- It has Robert Green's name at the bottom!DeleteClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 11:45 AMSome more?

http://holliegreig.info/peter-eyre-archive/part-8/

http://stolenkids-hollie.blogspot.com/2009/11/sk-h018-dramatis-personae.htmlDeleteClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 11:57 AMSorry Rantlet? WHAT was that you were saying about being factually incorrect? And Barbara who has been paying SUCH close attention...

All gone quiet all of a sudden??DeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 12:38 PMMe, go quiet? Are you joking? You've got me annoyed Matt Quinn, and so you can't expect me to stop nagging now! And I am not letting you get away with that last remark either, I have been paying as close attention to what is happing with Hollie Greig's case as I can, and Robert Greens trial, but, as I said earlier, Superwoman I aint!DeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 12:40 PMAnd where is apology number 2 and 3, or are you still busy scratting round looking for dirt on me trying to justify your remark about me not telling the truth?DeleteClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 12:43 PMBarbara - I couldn't give a spider's fart if you're annoyed! - You're due and you're getting no apology from me...

And you'll get no more attention for your neuroses either... I'll respond to matters that are on topic; but I've had aenough of your attention-seeking twaddle!DeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 12:48 PMWell, that's up to you. I don't care if you apologise or not. But I think your mum should have washed your mouth out with soap and water, as the way you talk to me is no way to talk to a lady!DeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 12:50 PMSo you think its ok to accuse someone of not being honest and then not explain why? I see. Well, that says a lot about your journalistic expertise Matt Quinn!DeleteReplyZoompadFeb 18, 2012 10:20 AM"You are not being honest with yourself Barbara; about a lot of things"

Right then Matt Quinn - lets have this out in the open here and now.

These things I am not being honest about - name them.

Let's have it.ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 10:27 AMYou have just made a statement about me not being honest about things Matt Quinn, but what you have failed to do is to point out what I am not being honest about.

You appear to me to be deliberatly trying to smear me.

If you have any accusations about me telling lies you had better come right out and say what you meant by it.

As a media man I would have thought you would have more sense than to pull a low trick like that, Matt Quinn.

It looks like you have two things to apologise about now, calling me nasty names and shouting at me, and trying to smear my character.

Good job Jesus said seventy times seven, as you are going to run out of forgiveness chances at the rate you're going!ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 10:42 AMI will tell you something else for free Mr Matt Quinn.

The day you got your fingers tapping away on your computer deciding to have a bullying session of me was the day you made a decision to expose yourself as the bullying foaming mouthed creep that you are.

I've been trying to figure out why you are so concerned about this Robert Green stuff, racking my brains to figure out what reason you have for coming to this blog and for spending hours writing your Can of Worms blog. You seem to be completly obsessed with Robert Green!

I think what I will do is simply ask the Lord, that's probably the best idea, because he sees everything so he knows everything.

I don't like people trying to smear me, Matt Quinn, so the next apology you make is going to have to be a super good grovelling one, as you have really got me very annoyed now.ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 10:55 AM"He failed to challenge the Procurator Fiscals decision to change the charges to ones which did not allow Jury Trial. He sat looking at a stained glass window above the Sherriffs chair when this was agreed to by his Advocate. He had the option of sacking his Advocate and making the challenge, which he had agreed to do before the hearing. He failed to do so"

Robert Green has a very sharp mind, and this just sounds so odd.

Sorry if I am seeming to dominate this thread, but people need to be asking questions about this, because it's not adding up at all.

(That apology does not extend to Matt Quinn or the other bullying idiot)ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 11:50 AMI never saw that page before. I'm no legal expert, but if I had, I'm pretty sure I would have told Robert Green myself not to publish that information.

Who the heck was advising and encouraging him to do that? I know that there were barriers being put up to stop him talking to certain people.ReplyDeleteRepliesMagna Carta Society BlogFeb 18, 2012 12:29 PMI'm new here. Are you saying Clydeside Television is Matt Quinn. Is so, who is Matt Quinn please?DeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 12:35 PMYes he is.DeleteClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 12:48 PMTry googl-ing!

I'm only the mug who has spent nearly two years trying to steer the Hollie Greig case AWAY from the mad conspiracy theory nonsense that Greg Lance-Watkins pushed it into...

AND the mug who has been lobbying mainstream writers and editors to pick the case up!!

I also happen to be a TV producer of some 30+ years standing and I lecture by invite in media law.DeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 12:52 PMYes, one who thinks its ok to accuse someone of dishonesty and not explain why. Great job Matt Quinn! Found any dirt on me yet? Keep looking!DeleteMagna Carta Society BlogFeb 18, 2012 03:53 PMNever heard of him.DeleteZoompadFeb 19, 2012 03:16 AMCurious isn't it?DeleteReplyClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 12:01 PM"Who the heck was advising and encouraging him to do that? I know that there were barriers being put up to stop him talking to certain people."

In my opinion Greg Lance-Watkins! He WANTED to drive the whole case into conspiracy theory to hide it in my view...

Once he was out of the picture other vultures descended to capitalise on it...

Robert Green has been played like a Trout!

There were another dozen or so copies of that paper and the information from it that have been taken down since I pointed out the SFA breach on the part of Watkins... THAT is a straggler...ReplyDeleteClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 12:11 PMhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/journalism/glossary/law/sexual-offences.shtml

Just for the avoidance of any doubt...ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 12:34 PM"In my opinion Greg Lance-Watkins!"

Are you having a big joke? Robert Green DETESTED Greg Lance Watkins - why would he be listening to him?ReplyDeleteRepliesClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 12:41 PMBarbara - You're not serious surely???

Watkins RAN the 'official' Hollie website until he was 'sprung' shortly after the Tony Legent Show fiasco!!DeleteZoompadFeb 18, 2012 12:46 PMYes of course I know that. But I'm talking about after that - after he realised.DeleteClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 12:54 PMThat's the puzzle Barbara...

That image dates back I believe to around Watkins getting involved. And about the time of the alleged BOP... So Watkins would be in the frame then...

AFTER Watkins was ousted Robert seems to have been targetted by a slightly different parcel of rogues. Where my opinion of Watkins is he was trying to protect paedos - This other lot seem to have a commercial agenda!

AT the point where Watkins was exposed Robert could have taken a different route - effected a proper defence - and we'd have got the core allegations covered...

Instead he seems to have been drawn into the conspiracy theory circus...DeleteReplyZoompadFeb 18, 2012 01:09 PMRight, well that makes some sense to me as well.

I am going to get off this computer but not before I have given you a good sound verbal thrashing Matt Quinn.

You have absolutly no right whatsoever to jeer and sneer at my postings about my personal pain.

We abuse survivors that do manage to find each other generally try to support each other. I haven't been through what Hollie Greig and others went through, but what happened to me was bad enough.

Its people like you with your jeering and sneering that put people who were abused off speaking out about what happened to them, and that helps the bad people who abused them to get away with it, and even do it to other kids!

You should have a good think over your nasty attitude. You shouldn't be talking to someone like me the way you have been doing, its horrible and it makes you look like a nasty big bully. If you cant say sorry to me at least you ought to say sorry to Jesus and ask him to make you less nasty.ReplyDeleteRepliesClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 01:28 PMI shouldn't rise to the bait but...

Verbal thrashing??? OK...

As I've said to you before Barbara - THIS blog isn't about YOU. - If you want to rant relentlessly about YOUR pain and experiences then you have your own blog for that...

YOU madam are utterly SELFISH and SELF CENTRED - and THAT is what you're just not being honest with yourself about - because if you WERE honest with yourself YOU just wouldn't act that way!!!

Capiche?

You're CONSTANTLY fishing for sympathy and CONSTANTLY trying to push YOUR suffering above and beyond that of anyone else - including Hollie greig who quite frankly is a LOT worse off than YOU!

I shouldn't be talking to 'someone like you' like that? Actually; it's high time somebody did! And as you're so fond of referring to God I've NO idea why I'm impelled to do so - But I guess somebody had to get stuck with the job!

Sorry Barbara - you're a grown up! YOUR not the only one (as was outlined to you earlier) to have experienced pain in your life - At least you still have yours!

And before you go down the old 'my pains bigger than your pain' routine... I AIN'T interested!!

And IF I'm a big nasty bully - Well that's how God made me!

Now - As I say Barbara - I've had enough of your self-pitying attention seeking... If you've something on-topic to say I'll respond

Otherwise - you can shove it!DeleteReplyElizabeth Robillard.Feb 18, 2012 02:33 PMI spoke to Greg Lance Watkins to get an idea of what he wanted, why he was being very rude and so on (Facebook), this was about a year or two ago - he told me Ann was a neurotic and that the authorities only wanted what's best for Hollie. He was convinced Hollies mum was the problem. He told me he had advanced cancer. It's possible he was involved initially to elicit as much information as possible from Hollie in order to put it to the other side, the evidence? I hope the truth will out, I do not believe Hollie COULD lie and I too have been terrorised by authorities, and they took my child in a similar situation, so I do believe them both and believe Mr.Green must appeal until all is in open court, so journalists will be able to report it all. It could be a good thing this outcome, as it opens the door to go public - though Mr.Green must be feeling terrible, please keep working on it, truth will win eventually.ReplyDeleteRepliesClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 03:52 PMAnne - to paraphrase her - could be the maddest person on the planet. That doesn't change the fact her little girl WAS raped... One or a hundred times makes no difference in terms of the horror of this crime.

My own blog exposed Watkins as a Fake and a liar... In some detail. 'Advanced Cancer'? It's a pity his clinicians are bound to confidentiality rules. Watkins was/is simply aggrieved that his fradulent back story was ripped to shreds.

Unfortunately Mr Green has no grounds for an appeal. The plain truth is Mr Green didn't defend the charges - He tried instead to use the court as a platform to air his grievances... That was never going to happen! One of the Sheriff's DUTIES is to keep the trial relevant and bring it to a speedy conclusion...

He played straight into their hands!

- As for reporting? So long as material such as that I gave the link to is promoted - The mainstream media just don't dare touch the Hollie Greig case.

The whole case needs to be recovered from the realms of ridiculous conspiracy theory before it can be tackled - Unfortunately it's gone from the grasp of certain people who in my opinion had the protection of paedophiles as their driving force to those who want to flot T-shirts, Mugs, conferences...DeleteMagna Carta Society BlogFeb 18, 2012 04:02 PM" Unfortunately Mr Green has no grounds for an appeal. The plain truth is Mr Green didn't defend the charges - He tried instead to use the court as a platform to air his grievances... That was never going to happen! One of the Sheriff's DUTIES is to keep the trial relevant and bring it to a speedy conclusion...

1) He's in it for the money and has been working towards a place in the highly lucrative conspiracy theory hall of fame.

2) He's easily lead, possibly watched too much Ally McBeal in his time. And was lead by the nose firstly by a man with the protection of perverts as his agenda... And once HE was out the way by others who saw the commercial potential in where the wreckage of the Hollie Greig case lay...

And lets not forget a vicious and corrupt 'justice' system up here that railroaded him on this 'piss poor' BOP charge...

LUDICROUS that he's gone down for it...

IMHO he should have taken the drop at the first hearing, gone for a plea in mitigation,copped for the fine, regrouped and got the whole Hollie case on a strictly legit basis...DeleteReplySarahFeb 18, 2012 04:09 PMI wonder why telling everyone that he has advanced (terminal as in dying?) cancer was relevant to the hdj campaign when glw was fronting it? To gain sympathy perhaps for when he behaved badly? Various individuals I can think of have been declared to have terminal cancer (meaning that they are dying?) so that theirs and others close to them bad behaviour will be overlooked or not questioned.

Corrie did a storyline not so long ago on a man who tried to con his estranged wife that the cancer he was diagnosed with wasn't getting any better and that he was dying, when in truth the cancer had been cleared and he was ok. He was found out in the end.ReplyDeleteRepliesClydeside TelevisionFeb 18, 2012 04:51 PMThis comment has been removed by the author.DeleteReplyClydeside TelevisionFeb 19, 2012 12:41 AMThought better of my last post - TMI ;-)

Lets face it - Watkins has a long history of lying about his background!

Watkins was very fond of tormenting people by claiming he could access their medical records... And he's never liked his own medicine.

Now; Corrie did indeed run that storyline... And another more recently about accessing medical records...

Imagine another fictional storyline in Corrie about someone with a long history of UTI's - thanks mainly to their emmm - 'preferences'! - Norris for instance; something a bit 'closeted' there? Was there a 'Basil' in that soap opera?

Kidney disease is one of the possible outcomes... They were very quick to whip one kidney out a few years back. Nasty but rarely life-threatening... Then there's prostate trouble; that's nasty too! - TURP! Sounds painful...ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 19, 2012 02:58 AM"Thought better of my last post "

Very wise, but not fast enough

Still waiting to see a photo of what you look like Mr Matt Quinn.

I've been trying to contact my broadband supplier about the weird way my computers have been playing up. I want to know if I have been hacked, as Belinda McKenzie said something a few days ago to give rise to suspicions that I have, and since she said that I have had a heck of a struggle getting online. I can't get through to my Broadband supplier, as every time I phone them I get put through to some loud music (Oasis I think, it's dreadful whoever it is) and left to have my ears blasted out. So I am going to have to write to them instead.

Clydside Television. With my limping computer access, not being able to access certain sites, weird behaviour of my computers ect, I am doing my best, but I simply cannot find any television programmes that this company has made!

Now that is like a pub with no beer. Weird.ReplyDeleteReplies6 M C KFeb 19, 2012 03:16 AMI have seen Matt so why dont you beat it ,you sound like a disinfo agent if ever there was oneDeleteReplyZoompadFeb 19, 2012 03:07 AM"Watkins was very fond of tormenting people by claiming he could access their medical records"

And I had a woman connected to him who sent me emails threatening to post my records online. She ranted that I hadn't been abused, and wanted to post my records online to prove it. The only problem with that, is that my records clearly show that I was. NOT raped in the Pindown "home" - but I never made false allegations that I had been! I assume that is the lack of honesty you were referring to earlier, Matt Quinn, as you still haven't justified your slanderous remark, have you?

Very easy for someone to get access to someone elses records if they trick them into trusting them, by pretending to help them.

There's been a lot of trickery going on though, hasn't there, Matt Quinn?

I'd really love to see a photo of you. Can't understand why you are so shy, you're in the media business!ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 19, 2012 03:14 AM"YOU madam are utterly SELFISH and SELF CENTRED - and THAT is what you're just not being honest with yourself about - because if you WERE honest with yourself YOU just wouldn't act that way!!!"

Like I said, I have PTSD, the fallout of years of abuse. Blaming me for that, you might as well blame Hollie for having Downs Syndrome.

But I think you threw that remark in because you thought better of what you were going to throw at me, because that would have revealed far too much about yourself and your real agenda, and, more importantly, your sources of information.

Us Pindown and institutional child abuse survivors are like birds with broken wings - we may not be able to fly, but we can still squark very loudly, and peck!ReplyDelete

Friday, 10 February 2012

I am very concerned about the remarks made by Belinda McKenzie at the end of the comments on this blog posting of Robert Greens. It wounds to me as though some very dubious computer activity has been going on.

I already know that some of the people who were on Mothers for Justice - the Orees - were computer experts. Operation Ore appears to have been sabotaged by these clever people hacking some politicians for the purpose of creating a smokescreen by blaming them of downloading porn.

So, as Belinda McKenzie has pretty much admitted that there has been some naughty business of hacking going on, I am posting the entire thread here, just in case they decide to pull that trick on any of the people who have been posting on that site.

*************************************************

Hollie Demands Justice - Robert Green's Blog Hollie Greig alleged in 2000 that she was the victim of a paedophile gang in Aberdeen. Her mother Anne was forcibly sectioned within days of the allegations being made. Hollie was awarded £13,500 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in spite of the fact that no-one was ever charged with any crime. THIS IS A SINGLE-ISSUE, HUMANITARIAN CAMPAIGN WITH NO CONNECTION TO ANY OTHER CAUSES.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012Angiolini and Bowen - Update At present, official responses are being awaited about Sheriff Principal Bowen`s failure to disclose details of his long-term boardroom acquaintance with Elish Angiolini and about the complaint made about the latter over the alleged theft of public funds.

In the case of the former, the Scottish Law Reporter provided an excellent updated report on 7th February and there has been a very good article about the trial, prior to the uncovering of Bowen`s concealment, in the UK Column on 25th January, stating its opinion that Scotland is now, unsurprisingly, Europe`s paedophile capital. It certainly seems to be the only country that I am aware of where the powers-that-be tacitly support the rape of its own children and the disabled.

Other helpful pieces and films have also appeared in the public domain.

With regard to Angiolini`s refusal to cooperate with the Queen`s appointed officer over the payments to Levy & McRae, Sergeant Hogg, of Central Police, has informed me today that it has now been passed to Lothian & Borders, as the alleged crime was believed to have been committed in that area.

This matter should not take long to resolve. All Angiolini has to do to establish her innocence is to provide proof that she paid the law firm out of her personal funds, although this was something she felt unable to do when questioned on this very issue by the Freedom of Information Commissioner over a six-month period.

Finally, whilst I am a great advocate of free speech and freedom of expression, I have noticed that the comments section is sometimes being used as a vehicle for expressing forceful views about persons and issues not directly connected to the subject of the blog. Therefore, I would appreciate it if those concerned would be courteous enough to restrict their views by relating them to the content of the blogs on this site. Posted by Robert Green at 2:54 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook65 comments: Clydeside TelevisionFeb 8, 2012 07:51 AMSuch a great advocate Robert that you exercise censorship...

I do believe sir you have now answered the essential question that was being raised in that exchange...ReplyDeleteClydeside TelevisionFeb 8, 2012 08:24 AM- And now they're back? Hmm

Well; I guess at least that leaves the Jury still out.ReplyDeletejohnFeb 8, 2012 01:14 PMRobert, due to the obvious abuse of the comments section of this blog, I suggest that the facility is shutdown. If I've got anything useful to say, then I'll send you an email. You can then be more selective about who you wish to hear from.ReplyDeleteSarah McLeodFeb 8, 2012 01:49 PMIt may be a good idea to close the comments, there are a lot of strange people about and the comments seem to have upset a few regular supporters.ReplyDeleteClydeside TelevisionFeb 8, 2012 02:13 PMRobert is, I believe at liberty to shut down the comments, and thereby stop the awkward questions being asked...

Indeed, for around 30 minutes today the 'awkward' posts were deleted... Thus my opening comment above and its follow up.

Of course a much more legitimate strategy would be to cogently counter the supposedly 'upsetting' points that have been made and answer the questions that have been posed... Put everyone's mind at rest...

But deflection, innuendo, false identities, evasion and censorship will tell us a great deal too...

We await developments with interest.ReplyDeleteIanFeb 8, 2012 02:25 PMI would agree with closing the comments section on this blog as well. Robert's comments/up-dates are all that's needed.ReplyDeletePyriteFeb 8, 2012 02:43 PMWhy is that Ian? Getting close to the truth are we?

What about the "Free Speech" Robert so fondly speaks of?

See Belinda! This is what happens when a few "Awkward" questions are asked and why we don't get the opportunity to "have a go at Robert" as you put it!!

I am just about to post a few things...if the comments stay open that is!

It is my understanding Ian that you are quite an intelligent individual? Don't worry about saving face will you....because if you are, you should be able to work out that this is all bullshit mate!ReplyDeletePyriteFeb 8, 2012 02:44 PMRunning the show are we now Ian?ReplyDeleteEng65Feb 8, 2012 02:46 PMYes i agree Ian; I don't enjoy getting in to verbal ping pong.ReplyDeleteSarah McLeodFeb 8, 2012 02:52 PMRobert has enough on his plate without these attacks on his blog! If you have things to say about the campaign or any other subject - say them on your own blogs!ReplyDeleteClydeside TelevisionFeb 8, 2012 03:19 PMPerfectly legitimate questions have been raised - Entirely relevant to the matters in hand.

Robert faces jail for one of two reasons...

1) He was tricked into following a course of behaviour that was guaranteed to lead to a conviction by people who wish to make a bankable asset of him...

2) He is himself complicit in an agenda to seek celebrity on the conspiracy theory circuit.

Even now he has options that could save him from jail. These DON'T involve letting Angiolini off the hook. And DON'T involve abandoning Hollie's case...

If he is the man I hope he is he will come to realise that these 'attacks' are in his best interests... But if jail is his ambition; well that will become apparent.ReplyDeletePyriteFeb 8, 2012 03:56 PMIndeed Matt.....but perhaps it's all....PART OF THE PLAN!

Oh, and i fear he is going to let you down Matt.ReplyDeleteClydeside TelevisionFeb 8, 2012 04:09 PMPerhaps Pyrite... Perhaps.

I often tell my students: My job is to pass the rope out. You either climb it or loop it 'round your own neck.

See it dangle? So clear and pure in white in the light of this full moon? Fine and strong it is.ReplyDeleteEng65Feb 8, 2012 06:16 PMcarrot-and-stick leave the man alone, he's done more than you arse holes put together. Clyde devote your time to your students that's if you have any, time spent on here.

I think jealousy is in order here don't you!ReplyDeleteSarah McLeodFeb 9, 2012 01:31 AMI see the admin on holliedemandsjustice.org (I don't know who it is) feels it is ok to make underhand comments about me and others.I am going to ignore this, I see the website is still using the photographs I provided for the campaign and is linked to all the videos I made of Robert campaigning, so these are the important things - rather than name calling.

obviously once any forum/comments section descends into name calling it is just a waste of everyone's time!

I would say to those of you who wish to discuss the case without prejudice that Robert's blog is not the place to do so - the man is still in the middle of a campaign and cannot publicly be bi-partizan.ReplyDeleteClydeside TelevisionFeb 9, 2012 02:43 AMWhere then Sarah?

Eng65 - I lecture PART time - by invite; it's not my main job. My primary business is producing television programmes. And your inference is correct; I have dedicated quite a bit of time to Hollie's case. - and I've done that without renumeration or seeking expenses of ANY kind.

And that HAS kept me from my paying work; but then I can afford it! - That doesn't matter. What matters is that Hollie's rapists are stopped from harming other children.

Yet again though you deflect from the fact that what is under question is not Robert per se - But those who seem to be orchestrating strategies that are:-

a) Likely to damage their stated aims and objectives...

b) Bound to fail... Designed to fail

c) Ultimately linked to someone who seems to have made a professional career out of creating 'black holes' for donations made to various 'lost causes'.

d) Ultimately linked to someone who seems to have a history of 'stage managing'various characters on the conspiracy theory stage.

Again - The name calling is risible. Perfectly valid questions have been raised. And there has been not one word by way of a cogent rebuttal or response. - This in the face of corroborating evidence that reflects a sound basis for the queries raised.

The matter of Robert's sentencing remains at hand. The question is he TRYING to 'wind up' the Sheriff and ENSURE he is jailed. If so, to what end? Martyrdom?

As I have oft-repeated now; he was convicted by summary process. That IS perfectly ususal in relatively trivial matters such as Breach Of The Peace - And that IS a mechanistic process...

IF that process has been interfered with; it will be obvious to any lawyer who is trained to understand the mechanism - There is, as I've said, almost zero scope for personal 'jusdgement' in terms of determining the verdict in a summary case...

So, I'm afraid Robert's notions of it all being a Masonic plot simply do NOT hold water; if that were the case it would be easily proven...

Similarly; the sheriff in such a case is actually OBLIGED to ensure that only relevant matters are heard in court.

I would contend that this IS one of the reasons Robert was prosecuted using this mechanism. Angiolini is of course a legal expert and it would be elementary knowledge to her that she could not be made take the stand - it was just never going to happen!

Questionmarks DO hang over Angiolini and others...

Much as Robert seems to have played into their hands by presenting a 'defence' that was bound to fail ( shades of Shayler there). - The summary nature of the (inappropriate) charge brought against him coupled to the lengths travelled to execute the prosecution indicate something is very VERY wrong here...

As was the case when GLW did his dirty deeds - Hollie's case remains unprosecutable thanks to the amount of material flying around. And the crazy, unlawful 'loose cannon' accusations against that creep onto sites like HDJ EVERY TIME the case is just about to be broken to some degree indicate that SOMEONE close to the source actually doesn't WANT the case to break...

The importance of Hollie's case should not be forgotten.

But in the matter of Angiolini and the basic failures that lead ultimately to the stage we are at now there lie further important questions that need to be answered.

Carried on along the lines they are being taken both Hollie's case and matters pertaining to Robert's prosecution are following the same of familiar 'McKenzie Pattern'.

Hollie's of course now being at the stage where the hat is being passed 'round...ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 9, 2012 03:44 AMI have now blocked all 5 Ian McFerrans from my Facebook friends list, also I have reblocked Stuart Usher and so many Belinda McKenzies that I lost count, but two of them were male Nelinda McKenzies. Anyway, all of them are blocked now. I have also taken the I AM A MUG, KICK ME sign off my back and am leaving the circus tent.ReplyDeleteRepliesIanFeb 9, 2012 09:30 AMHello Barbara,

I'm sorry you have felt the need to block me on Facebook and I will, naturally, respect your decision. However, as you didn't approach me at all about any issues you may have with me personally, may I ask exactly why you blocked me as your entry here is the first I knew there was any problem?

I am not taking it personally, I'm just a bit confused as none of the comments on this thread appear to relate to Robert's initial entry (hence my agreement to close the comments) and, as far as I can see, I do not appear to have said or done anything specifically in respect of dishonouring or exploiting you. In fact, I only made that one 'close the comments' entry. So, I hope you can see my confusing here.

As I say, I will respect your decision but, if you would please let me know why you took that course of action, it would be appreciated as this may ensure I don't do it again with someone else.

Many thanks.

IanDeleteReplySarah McLeodFeb 9, 2012 04:14 AMI am not sure Matt but with your - and other's (pyrite?) - extensive knowledge of the blogosphere I imagine a different site would not be too difficult to find?

for these reasons;

1. It is quite obvious that Robert's blog has gone rogue, there are no admins or moderators and Robert himself does not know how to comment, delete comments or block commenters. He is at an unfair advantage.

2. The information that is being presented in the comments section - whether you agree or not - is important to the Hollie Greig case and needs to be housed more securely.

I'm not suggesting you do all the work Matt, these are just my thoughtsReplyDeleteRepliesPyriteFeb 9, 2012 09:40 AMThis comment has been removed by the author.DeleteReplySarah McLeodFeb 9, 2012 04:17 AM*disadvantageReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 9, 2012 04:28 AMI was at an unfair disadvantage when I felt compelled to attend the Stoke On Trent Rally, because of the rumours that John Hemming MP was to attend, having had an eye operation the day before, and my eye stinging like hell, to have to get on a train and attend that rally only to discover that Hemming had actually been invited, and to be heckled and moaned at by Hemmings UK Column Worshippers was not a good experience, I can tell you. Getting nasty comments about what a freak I looked was also not nice. Of course I looked like a freak, I had just had my blinking eye operated on!

I am still waiting (probably in vain) for Brian Gerrish to return the documents I foolishly entrusted him with, and I asked him to use just a few pennies of the very generous donation I stupidly gave him, when I believed that he was using donated funds to prevent child abuse.

What stands out so strikingly for me is how none of the so called Justice For Hollie team want to talk about Colin Tucker - very strange, considering it is right on Hemmings doorstep.ReplyDeletebelindaFeb 9, 2012 05:02 AMSarah can you just explain what physically happens when someone who was an admin on a site having in the case of John actually built it then relinquishes their involvement with it. Did he/you hand over to anyone else, who then would have changed the login details presumably, if so who is that person? And if there is such a person why aren't they doing anything to moderate since as everyone knows Robert is not technical himself? Or, if Robert has no one new helping him this means surely the login details haven't been changed and you still have them, doesn't it? I also am not technical so I don't know how these things work but am concerned that noone is helping protect Robert here.ReplyDeleteRepliesPyriteFeb 9, 2012 06:15 AMFor someone who speaks posh, you’re written English is damn poor isn't it? Maybe you’re not "Technical" with language either!

Hey everyone....is it all a front do you think? You know....fur coat no knickers sort of thing?

I mean, i know the kids of today cannot read, write or use grammar very well...but this sort of thing is exactly what surrounds Robert. Even if he was correct in what he was doing.....don't think he would have a chance really.

Just my opinion. :)DeleteSarah McLeodFeb 9, 2012 07:46 AMBelinda, to my knowledge Robert is the sole person that has access to posting on and moderating his blog, if he has given access details to anyone else, I don't know about it. Anyone can comment and to my knowledge nobody has ever been blocked, according to Robert he does not know how to comment, delete comments or block commenters. I believe him and the evidence is there to bear this out; 160 comments on the previous blog and counting.

Your question about why nobody is helping him is a good one, why is nobody helping him?DeletePyriteFeb 9, 2012 09:42 AMWhy is nobody helping him? Perhaps because no one wants to help out a con man…what do you think?

And also, I have reliable information that Anne was the only other one to have the password to “Stolen Kids”….who is running that now??

de ja vu anyone!!DeleteAptlFeb 9, 2012 02:57 PMThis comment has been removed by the author.DeleteReplyZoompadFeb 9, 2012 05:14 AMGlad to see you posting here Belinda. I would email you but I don't want anyone else from your circle of friends to set Stafford Police on a false errand, falsely accusing me of sending malicious emails again. Can you give a message to your good friend Brian Gerrish? Can you tell him, Barbara Richards said , "Please can I have my money and my documents back please? " I'm sure he doesn't need my money, as the Cause seems to be very well funded already without taking from a pauper like me.ReplyDeleteRepliesPyriteFeb 9, 2012 06:21 AMYeah! Big DONATION button on HDJ!!

Where does it all go do you think?

Be good to have some transparency wouldn’t it!

Although if it’s a charity there are rules about that....but then they do have individuals working for them that would be able to circumnavigate those rules i guess....

Still, worth a look I think…DeleteReplyZoompadFeb 9, 2012 05:21 AMI will keep a sharp look out for men in white vehicles carrying rocks stoving them through peoples windows then trying to creep off without being seen. I would not like anyone else in my family to have any more windows smashed in by Rentathug, or to have their dustbins tipped all over the place either.ReplyDeletePyriteFeb 9, 2012 06:18 AMHow the hell Brian Gerrish is mixed up in all of this I'll never understand!

Or maybe it's just because the whole damn lot of them are out to do an icke!

Money money money money money money money!!!!!ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 9, 2012 06:30 AMPyrite, after I gave John Hemming and Brian Gerrish a good tougue lashing at Stoke my mum had her window smashed in by two men, and she also had her bins tipped out all over the street, and so did my sister. And it was not kids who did it - it was two men - they were seen by the neighbours - everyone is dead nosy where I live - thank God!ReplyDeletePyriteFeb 9, 2012 07:00 AMZP I have always had a good impression of Brian...probably the only one of the main protagonist that i haven't met. Although they wouldn't know me lol, i like to keep a low profile for this very reason. Not that i am scared, i am rather large and can take care of myself very well. But like most, i have vulnerable people around me....

I have heard whisperings about this regarding Brian and UK collumn....I think it's long overdue now that we looked a little more critically about these organisations, and the individuals concerned.

Let’s address something quickly while I have the time.

Isn’t it strange how Robert has never ever had a debate? The only time he had anyone question him was Mark Daly. Daly asked one perfectly normal question and green completely went loopy! Robert Green does not debate because it would detract from his STORY

We all have to sit around and listen like good boys and girls; funny how the intelligent ones have run for the hills isn’t it!

What’s left (and I mean no disrespect) are the more fragile, the needy, the weak opposition, and you are being exploited like hell!!

Let him come on here…..I’m sure someone can show him how to type on a blog!! Let him explain all this stuff that needs to be explained…..do you think he will? LMFAO!!! NO WAY!

He manages to type harassing emails though doesn’t he!

But this is exactly his way….he lets others do his dirty work and the he can sit back and say “oh I didn’t know!!” …“it’s all a conspiracy!!”ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 9, 2012 07:17 AMWell, all I can say is that I don't think much of a man who thinks it is ok to con a child abuse survivor out of money she can't really afford - to put it in Biblical language, the widows mite.

I gave him that money because I truly believed that he and Belinda McKenzie and the UK Column were trying to stop institutional child abuse, so that the horrible things that happened to me wouldn't happen to anyone else.

I just feel really disgusted now. He won't even send me my documents back, and when he phoned me up and I asked him if I could speak to Mike Robinson, to sort out why he lied to me Brian was really nasty to me, he accused me of picking a fight, he was trying to make out I am aggressive, and thats not true. I'm not an aggressive person at all, but I don't like being taken for a mug, who would? He's always spouting out about people needing to speak up, but then to accuse me of picking fights because of wanting to get to the bottom of why Mike Robinson told me a deliberate lie is not on!ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 9, 2012 07:19 AMI hope that money that organisation conned me out of burns a great big hole in all their pockets. I hope God rewards them for stealing the widows mite.ReplyDeletePyriteFeb 9, 2012 07:49 AMThat's a very typical response ZP...and that is why i am doing what i am doing. These individuals are simply exploiting people in the false name of……. whatever they want to make up!!ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 9, 2012 08:56 AMFunny how so many people are wanting to close the comments section of this blog down. These are the very people who are always harping on about free speech and stopping gagging. Its been an eye opening few days for me. I feel really sick and angry about what I have found out so far. I have felt for ages that things weren't right, but I could not put my finger on what was wrong. I was always having to give people the benefit of the doubt, and make excuses for their not being 100% straightforward. It just makes me feel sick to think that anyone could exploit people they knew damned well were fragile and vulnerable.ReplyDeleteSarah McLeodFeb 9, 2012 10:15 AMBelinda and Robert, you should probably do something about the blog and comments as it is complete carnage. Would Ian Parker Joseph help you? Robert changed the password when John handed over the blog, so he is the only one that can do anything about it.ReplyDeleteRepliesPyriteFeb 9, 2012 12:16 PMWhere IS Robert? Probably sunning himself on some beach with all the money from the donate button - Belinda feeding him grapes - both wearing tin foil hats to keep away the aliens, and watching for the giant tsunami that will come ashore when the pole shifts for 2012

Oh and I wouldn’t bother about Robert, you will probably need to hack it because

ROBERT HAS FORGOTTON THE PASSWORD AND HOW TO DO IT LOL LOLDeleteReplyZoompadFeb 9, 2012 10:49 AMWhat harm can free speech do to a just cause? Sarah, I detest child abuse, and that is the reason I am so concerned about the Colin Tucker situation. I would have thought John Hemming would be just as concerned, but all there has been from him on that subject is a stone wall of complete silence. I find that really incredible.ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 9, 2012 10:54 AMIan,

The reason that I decided to block you on Facebook is because you had multiple identities, and, as I have been hacked several times on facebook and also had friends appear in my friends list that I know I never invited (including one who didnt even have a name, just a strange blue logo of hands holding a child) I just feel I need to be careful of who I am friends with. Also, you are avocating blocking the comments here on this blog, and that worries me a great deal.

Sorry if it sounds like I am accusing you of anything - I'm not, but I just need to try to keep myself safe.ReplyDeleteRepliesPyriteFeb 9, 2012 12:17 PMForget it ZP...he is a well and truly hooked!

Take my word for it.DeleteIanFeb 9, 2012 12:35 PMHello Barbara,

Many thanks for explaining that. I totally understand you need to be cautious and, as I said, I will respect your decision.

I would just like to put your mind at rest about two things, if I may?

1) I only have ONE account. I have no idea who the others are.2) My comment where I agreed with closing the comments is based on, well, all of the above comments. This is, after all, Robert Green's blog, created with the express purpose of keeping people up to date on events with the case. Nothing more, nothing less. So, as some contributors appear to be redirected people away from Robert's actual blogging itself, I made that comment - which was just that, a comment, not an order.

However, that aside, thank you again for explaining what you did and, whilst I can assure you that you are certainly wrong about me having multiple accounts, I will respect your view.

Best wishes.

IanDelete6 M C KFeb 9, 2012 03:57 PMIan a wise man I knew used to say never try to reason with the unreasonable or argue with an idiot , you have both with pieshitesDeleteReplyPyriteFeb 9, 2012 12:55 PMMake no mistake, this is NOT just a blog to keep people up to date!

If it was, it would have been set up that way in the first place.

It is a "tool" for a job. One of many in "Hollies army" that is here to show how much "Support" HDJ is getting.

Well, to create the illusion anyhow!!

Oh and your other accounts Ian were probably set up by George....he likes to make up fake accounts of all sorts LOL!ReplyDelete6 M C KFeb 9, 2012 03:55 PMOh and your other accounts Ian were probably set up by George....he likes to make up fake accounts of all sorts LOL!

Really Dale using my full name again,told you that was for real human being ,you know not dirty low life judas backsatbbers or is that pieshites or justyc or agentcooper or Lynn or just good old hypocrite ?ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 10, 2012 12:03 AMIan,

Thanks for coming on here and explaining. I have tried to unblock you, but its difficult, as I dont want to unblock all the other fake id people who are using your name. I'm not sure if I have managed it, but you could try friending me again.

Sorry if I've offended you, but I am just trying to keep myself safe, there are so many awful people playing tricks.ReplyDeleteCarol SimsFeb 10, 2012 03:43 AMI have proof that ROBERT GREEN is a government agent working for an international conspiracy of freemasons protected by the UN and EU.

Green will be sentenced to prison but will not actually go to jail and he will really be sunning himself on a desert island with his elite freinds.ReplyDeleteEng65Feb 10, 2012 03:49 AMThis what the Hollie Greig Campaign had to put up with. A 'conspiracy' is a bad thing. It can be, depending on who is actually involved, seditious, evil, treasonous, fraudulent and, perhaps least of all, illegal. It implies a well-coordinated plot to manipulate circumstances for the betterment of an elite few while victimising the innocent. Some conspiracies are small scale. Like the owner of a cockroach infested restaurant bribing a health inspector to look the other way. Some actual conspiracies are much grander.ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 10, 2012 06:17 AMWell I hope you are not accusing me of conspiring against anyone Eng65. I am a victim of child abuse myself, and I hate child abuse. Thats why I am so concerned about what has been going on! I am really puzzled about why Belinda McKenzie has been cosying up to two men that I know for a fact to have done their utmost to shove child abuse under the carpet - Lord Falconer and John Hemmings. I wrote to both those men about Richard Gardner and Ralph Underwager, and the use of their invented syndromes in this country. I showed my own MP Bill Cash some of the disgusting things Ralph Underwager said and he told me to carry on campaigning against the evil, and he also told me he was the one who set up Operation Ore. I wish he would bring it up in Parliament, but at least Ken Clark has done something to stop mens rights groups and corrupt law firms getting lots of legal aid money by using the clap trap that awful pervert Gardner invented.

I was shocked when I saw that picture of Belinda McKenzie with that pair, plus Jonathon Sacks. Would she care to explain what she was doing with those men, and also who the other man is? She may say it is none of our business, well I say it is.

I don't want to disrupt and true action for justice at all, I just want some answers. And I don't think Belinda McKenzie should be allowing people on her blog site to call people like me nasty names either.ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 10, 2012 08:58 AMhttp://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the+operation+of+the+family+court+lord+falconer+jump&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CGQQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fdocuments%2Fupload%2Ffamilyjusticememopart1.pdf&ei=eUw1T97nIcOn0AXu9ZyXAg&usg=AFQjCNGRaO03Fbg2CPOtn9_GFDZhXWCzYQ&sig2=NElqhjAjPqnhSCM5I1ar5g

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the+operation+of+the+family+court+lord+falconer&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CD4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fzoompad.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F05%2Flord-falconer-part-2.html&ei=eEs1T-H4EYqH0AW6s5GaAg&usg=AFQjCNGAk9D66-xgPvMjRmJGHq6o0yUk_w&sig2=00NCd0I_wBdqnU7QhLiuMAReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 10, 2012 09:08 AMhttp://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ludwig+fred+lowenstein+HAMPSHIRE+COUNTY+COUNCIL&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CFsQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk%2FJudgments%2Fj731%2F317.%2520Ludwig%2520Fred%2520Lowenstein%2C%2520Katherine%2520Brenda%2520Lowenstein%2520v%2520Hampshire%2520County%2520Council.doc&ei=sE41T7TdCeOh0QWY2JyYAg&usg=AFQjCNFXs6xpeo9nmgHd6l3RwCLQIF2QKg&sig2=dohsqy697aGWgKyzF5eBOgReplyDeletePyriteFeb 10, 2012 12:07 PMAs the other thread has over 200 comments now…and you have to click the words “load more” at the bottom of the page (and some people won’t be able to work that out!) I thought I would post this very interesting piece here.

Here is Belinda’s latest attempt at rallying the troops once more!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0US5GLUloU

Swing in a take a look at around the 4 minute mark and you will hear Belinda explaining how Hollie, whilst in a refuge with her mom, complained that she wanted to go back and get the dogs!

Anne apparently said that the dogs will be ok.

“Oh not they won’t” says Hollie…”and she began to explain to her mom why”, exclaims Belinda.

So, Hollie was afraid that her dad was going to kill the dogs, as APPARENTLY he had told Hollie he would, along with her mother!

Lets see if Hollie really was afraid of that…..Cue the video!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=CzUwy1ai2p0

At 3.25 Hollie explains that she didn’t believe her dad would kill her dog or her mother!

AND HOLLIE CANNOT LIE!

But she can tell the truth……if she is told IT IS THE TRUTH!!

This is only one of many inconsistent stories from Anne, and Hollie.

Oh, and personally...i HATE the way Anne speaks to Hollie and asks/tells her to "sit up" just before the presenter asks her the questions! Listen to the tone...see if you can hear it too!ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 10, 2012 12:51 PMI can't hear anything nasty in Anne's tone, and what Hollie said, well perhaps Hollie felt confident in her mum being able to protect her.

It's Belinda McKenzie that worries me in all of this. That photo, where did it come from? I would like to know what the discussion they were having was about.ReplyDeleteRepliesPyriteFeb 10, 2012 02:02 PMZP..not sure if you understand.

EVERYONE..including Belinda in her recent video states that Hollie was afraid that her dog/s were going to be killed.

But Hollie states herself that she DIDN'T believe that her dad would do it!

So it makes no sense that she would be AFRAID of it.

As for the Tone...ok...but i saw the way Hollie shot up as soon as Anne said it....just seems strange to me.DeleteReplyPyriteFeb 10, 2012 01:33 PMA quote from the FAQ's of http://holliedemandsjustice.org/faq/

Q. Who is this Greg Lance Watkins and what part does he play in the story?

A. In 2009 Greg Lance Watkins (GLW) made contact with Anne Greig by telephone and appeared supportive of Hollie’s and her campaign. He set up a website in order to promote the campaign called Stolen Kids–Hollie blogspot. After a few months however Anne began to have suspicions about GLW whom she’d never met, for one main reason – the manner in which he tried to force her to request money from people, which she did not want to do. Despite her unwillingness, he went ahead and set up a PayPal account. Hence in April 2010 Anne severed relations with him.

"It is a remarkable fact that none of the 22 named by Hollie have so far taken any steps in law to redress the damage to their reputations, with the exception of Sheriff Graham (Graeme in Scotland) Buchanan who is suing Robert Green for certain expenses incurred in the period November 2009 to April 2010"

And why not...he was the wrong Buchanan!!

Great investigating ROBERT!!

And is it really so surprising that these people didn't want to come into the mainstream media circus and have their reputations decimated because of an idiot with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!

For those that have not heard the Tony Legend when Mark Daly and Robert and Anne was on there...here is the transcript.

Hollie has also described being taken by minibus from the school to gatherings for sex and other practices in the house of Jack and Evelyn Buchanan, along with 7 other children whom she has named.

MD: Tony now...er...as part of this paedophile ring, the ringleader is the sheriff, he’s also involved with his sister and his sister’s wife. Now Robert being an investigator, Truth Ranger as he’s been called, will of course have made sure that these relationships exist. The truth Tony, is that this sheriff has no sister, therefore has no brother-in-law. Okay. So you know, these are the main people of the paedophile ring and two of them don’t exist. Okay. Now, shall I move on?

TL: Yeah, I’d just like to ...Anne, would you like to say anything to that?

AG: That’s not true at all

MD: Well these things as you know are checkable through the register of births, deaths and marriage, marriages and er ask Robert to maybe have a look at that. Now next...

AG: I think you must have the wrong sheriff there

TL: sorry, say that again there Anne

AG: I think you must have got the wrong sheriff

MD: No I don’t have the wrong sheriff Anne I’m afraid, I don’t. Now, if I can just continue

TL: Yeah, continue

MD: It’s been said, well firstly, the allegations were made at first in 2000 and many of the allegations were said to have... some of the abuse was said to have taken place in the sheriff’s house in Aberdeen. This sheriff...

AG: That’s not true

MD: Well Anne, I’ve seen some of the allegations and it is true

AG: Ah that’s not true, that’s not what we told you.

MD: He didn’t live in Aberdeen until 2000. He didn’t live in Aberdeen until 2000

RG: We never said that

MD: He only lived there in 2000. These are the kind of things...

AG: We never said his house. At all. We never mentioned his house at all

MD: It has been said Anne. It has been said. These are the kind of things that investigators investigate to see whether or not they can proceed with a story. Now can I move on?

AG: That was never said at all that it was at his house.

MD: Okay, well I think you have, have said that. That allegation has been made Anne.if you read that - it says jack and Evelyn Buchannan house Hollie was taken to - but if they did not exist whose house was Hollie talking about -and the sheriff had not lived in the area until about 2000 did Robert not find that out - he would have done if he had gone to the council offices in Aberdeen and checked

Of course to most supporters its a simply case of Mark Lying....

That is untrue....I CAN ASSURE YOU!

And this once again shows the ineptitude of George Robert Green!ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 10, 2012 02:55 PMOh my stars! I don't know what to say.ReplyDeleteClydeside TelevisionFeb 10, 2012 03:10 PMDid you not listen to the show Barbara; you'll find it on YouTube...

My own comments of the time are here...

http://the-can-of-worms.blogspot.com/2010/07/part-2-outing-of-robert-green.html - Unfortunately the link to the recording no longer works.

You might also find it useful to go through the blog and see how it evolved over time... It'll a while mind...ReplyDeletebelindaFeb 10, 2012 03:13 PMSorry not to have answered you sooner Barbara, it's been a busy week, have glanced now and again at the blog but no time to input! The photo in which I am alleged to be in close proximity to Lord Falconer and the Chief Rabbi at a parliamentary meeting is in fact the meeting in January 2010 of the APPG on Ending and Preventing War, chaired by Elfyn Llwyd MP. Left to right are Elfyn, Chris Coverdale, Jean Andrews of Brighton not Nottingham, Paul Flynn MP and John Hemming MP. The APPG was suspended while Elfyn sought re-election and did not reconvene thereafter as I by that time was immersed in Hollie & unprosecuted paedophilia which I felt was a more urgent cause as many are trying to stop war in various ways (although Chris Coverdale had a particularly interesting and unique formula for doing so), but almost no one is addressing this very dark issue of children being preyed upon by paedophiles at the highest level of society with their peers covering up for them. Well I don't want to be ruled by a class of people who practice or condone the abuse and torture of young children because if they can do that with no feeling whatsoever for the suffering of their helpless victims, what else can't they do to cause mayhem and misery on this planet. Time to flush these deviant people out of public life, I’d say and I'll take a bet that if we do, the world might suddenly become a better place in all other respects too.ReplyDeletebelindaFeb 10, 2012 03:56 PMThis again on Friday evening and still catching up after busy week is to Birmingham-based PYRITE, star of this comment-thread, no adjectives needed! We know all about you and who you are Pyrite, hiding behind your avatar like so many others too cowardly to reveal themselves openly, thus is the internet culture of our day. Hollie is blessed at last a webmaster who is monumentally shrewd in identifying people via their electronic footprints online, and let me tell you, we have you ALL by now and are going to expose you!! Some are slightly higher in the honesty/integrity stakes such as Clydesdale/Matt Quinn whom I slated midweek as “Clydesdale lowlife”, sorry for that Matt, in my exasperation at the way Robert’s blog was being taken over I hit out at you, forgetting your role in the campaign. So of course you responded by hurling everything you had on me back. No worries, water under the bridge. I’m sure you are popular with your students. Robert says ignore anyone negative, defamatory etc. because the more such people whatever drives them continue to rant and froth (the sarcasm and attempts at satire such types deploy to mask their seething rage constitute a very thin veneer) only serves to confirm their true identity. So with our clever webmaster Ian busily checking electronic footprints and everyone hanging themselves by their own noose publicly by the very comments they have been making, it’s been a very satisfactory week in the interests of what Robert would term “free speech and freedom of expression” on his blog, bring it on!ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 10, 2012 04:26 PMBelinda,

Thank you for the explaination of who those people are and what the conference was about.

In tracking all our electronic footprints I sincerely hope you have not been breaking the law by illegally hacking peoples computers. I have noticed that mine have been running very slowly recently.

I don't want to be ruled over by people who sanction the abuse and torture of children either, which is why I am so shocked about the disgusting way I was treated on Mothers for Justice for two years by men who were pretending to be protectors of children. Your friend John Hemming knows all about that, as do you.

I hope no more weird and creepy things are going to happen to me or my family ie having people creeping around in cars parking up round my house, having rocks hurled through my mother's window and bins being tipped out all over the street, because I wont be very pleased if that sort of thing happens again you know.ReplyDeleteZoompadFeb 10, 2012 04:33 PMWho is your clever webmaster Ian please? If I am having my computer hacked I would like you to tell me the identity of the hacker please, obviously it will have to be reported to the police, as hacking is a criminal offence.ReplyDelete